Brendan Cully <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thursday, 22 February 2007 at 09:11, Thomas Roessler wrote: >> Folks, >> >> Brendan is taking the lead for releasing things and deciding what >> gets into the repository. I understand he has some plans, including >> moving the master repository from cvs to mercurial. > > Indeed. I think it offers a number of advantages. Among them: > . It makes it much easier to do development outside the main tree > (simply clone and you have full power to commit to your own tree) > . Atomic commits, renames, etc that any modern VCS should have. > . Much easier merging. Right now the stable branch basically gets > abandoned shortly after the dev is opened. Hg makes it much easier > to keep stable open and bring changes from it into dev. > . GPG-signed tags in the repository itself. > > I am probably biased, since I do a fair amount of hg hacking, but it > is certainly an improvement over CVS.
No need for justification - the maintainer doing the work gets to make the decisions, and Mercurial will certainly ease workflows that are a headache in CVS. Personally, I've also come to like SVK to some extent (albeit the Windows/Cygwin stuff is severely lacking, unfortunately), but in the light of your involvement, hg seems like the better plan. > Let's open up a 1.6 thread :) Gee. This is going on at considerable speed. Fasten seat belts! 8-) -- Matthias Andree
